ObjectiveTo estimate the reported incidence of occupational hypersensitivity pneumonitis (OHP) in the UK and to consider whether the pattern of attributed causation has changed over time.MethodsAll cases of OHP reported to the SWORD scheme between January 1996 and December 2015 were classified into 1 of 10 categories of the suspected agent. Cases were grouped into four 5-year time periods to examine any changing pattern in incidence or suspected causation. For each time period, the annual incidence was calculated using the estimated number of reported cases and the working population of the UK.ResultsBetween 1996 and 2015, there were 202 actual cases of OHP reported to SWORD, equating to an estimated 818 cases, when adjusting for the sampling ratio. Over this period, the annual UK incidence was 1.4 per million workers. The mean (SD) age of reported cases was 52 (13) years, and cases were four-times more likely to be men than women. Over the study period, there was a fall in the proportion of cases reported to be due to agricultural exposures (44–12%), and an increase in cases due to metalworking fluids (MWFs, 2–45%).ConclusionsOver the last 20 years, the incidence of OHP in the UK has been ∼1–2 cases per million workers per year. Working with water-based MWFs is now the most commonly suspected causative exposure for OHP cases reported to the SWORD scheme in the UK.

Work in this sector was associated with a significantly increased risk of respiratory symptoms and asthma. The evidence for wood dust exposure causing impaired lung function is less clearly established. Further study is required to better understand the prevalence, and causes, of respiratory problems within this sector.

The strength of the association between IPF mortality and historic asbestos imports was similar to that seen in an established asbestos-related disease, i.e. mesothelioma. This finding could in part be explained by diagnostic difficulties in separating asbestosis from IPF and highlights the need for a more accurate method of assessing lifetime occupational asbestos exposure.

Background With the aim of decreasing immigration, the British government extended charging for healthcare in England for certain migrants in 2017. There is concern these policies amplify the barriers to healthcare already faced by asylum seekers and refugees (ASRs). Awareness has been shown to be fundamental to access. This article jointly explores (i) health care professionals’ (HCPs) awareness of migrants’ eligibility for healthcare, and (ii) ASRs’ awareness of health services. Methods Mixed methods were used. Quantitative survey data explored HCPs’ awareness of migrants’ eligibility to healthcare after the extension of charging regulations. Qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with ASRs were analyzed thematically using Saurman’s domains of awareness as a framework. Results In total 514 HCPs responded to the survey. Significant gaps in HCPs’ awareness of definitions, entitlements and charging regulations were identified. 80% of HCP respondents were not confident defining the immigration categories upon which eligibility for care rests. Only a small minority (6%) reported both awareness and understanding of the charging regulations. In parallel, the 18 ASRs interviewed had poor awareness of their eligibility for free National Health Service care and suitability for particular services. This was compounded by language difficulties, social isolation, frequent asylum dispersal accommodation moves, and poverty. Conclusion This study identifies significant confusion amongst both HCP and ASR concerning eligibility and healthcare access. The consequent negative impact on health is concerning given the contemporary political climate, where eligibility for healthcare depends on immigration status.